Search
Search results
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2346 KP) rated You Feta Watch Out in Books
Nov 20, 2024
Who Made Sure Marley Really Was Dead as a Doornail?
Carly is happy to be attending a dress rehearsal of the production of A Christmas Carol that has come to town. However, Preston Lennon, the actor playing Jacob Marley, causes such a disruption they have to take an unscheduled intermission. Then Carly’s friend, Gina, finds Preston’s body in his dressing room. Can Carly clear her friend?
While a play of A Christmas Carol might be familiar in a Christmas cozy, I enjoyed the twist on who the victim was. It led to a strong mystery with plenty to suspects and a logical climax I didn’t see coming. The characters are all fun to be around. I especially enjoyed spending time with the series regulars again, and I appreciated that the warnings to Carly to be careful were toned down in this book. The Christmas spirit is strong; it made me wish I were reading it in December with my decorations already up. There are two recipes at the end, including a Christmas grilled cheese. Grill up a sandwich and enjoy this fun Christmas mystery.
While a play of A Christmas Carol might be familiar in a Christmas cozy, I enjoyed the twist on who the victim was. It led to a strong mystery with plenty to suspects and a logical climax I didn’t see coming. The characters are all fun to be around. I especially enjoyed spending time with the series regulars again, and I appreciated that the warnings to Carly to be careful were toned down in this book. The Christmas spirit is strong; it made me wish I were reading it in December with my decorations already up. There are two recipes at the end, including a Christmas grilled cheese. Grill up a sandwich and enjoy this fun Christmas mystery.
The Sinister Sitcom Caper
8.0
Rate It
Book
Sandy Fairfax, former teen idol and star of the '70s hit TV show Buddy Brave, Boy Sleuth, is now...
The Library Game
9.0
Rate It
Book
In The Library Game, Tempest Raj and Secret Staircase Construction are renovating a classic...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Apr 16, 2018
Not a Masterpiece, but has a Masterful performance
With the DARK KNIGHT, Christopher Nolan kicks his movie's up a notch. His previous films were critical - but not necessarily commercial - successes. With the 2nd of his Batman trilogy, Nolan swings for the seats and in more ways than one, hits a home run.
THE DARK KNIGHT continues the "dark, realistic" Batman story line (based on the Frank Miller Graphic Novels of the same name) that Nolan started with BATMAN BEGINS. This film starts off simply enough - a "James Bond" type of opening action sequence that has Batman tying up some loose ends (specifically regarding the villain Scarecrow), but Nolan (and his brother, the Screenwriter Jonathan Nolan) do a clever thing, they interweave the introduction of a new villain, The Joker, into this universe.
While The Joker commits crime after crime, his real purpose is to bring chaos and anarchy to Gotham City - and he succeeds wonderfully well, despite the attempts of Batman, Alfred, Lucious Fox and Detective Jim Gordon to stop him.
As is befitting a criminal such as The Joker - and also, as befitting a big budget summer tent pole blockbuster film - the stunts of this film are amazing, over-the-top, explosive and LOUD. There are death defying stunts, breathlessly captured, long, screeching car chases (that's a good thing) and fight scenes that are well choreographed and are, by the most part, done "practically" (not with the aid of CGI), including a wonderful stunt of flipping a semi-truck and trailer up in the air and onto it's back by the nose of the truck.
These stunts would mean nothing if there wasn't some folks to root for and get behind - and this film has those characters - and performances - in spades with continued good work from Nolan "Dark Knight Trilogy" regulars Christian Bale (Batman/Bruce Wayne), Detective Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), Alfred the Butler (Michael Caine, really shining here) and Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman - a nice character add to this universe for this trilogy). This core really brings the goods, which is good, for the newcomers to this series - Aaron Eckhart's District Attorney Harvey Dent and Maggie Gillenhall taking over the role of Rachel Dawes (from Katie Holmes) are pretty bland in comparison.
But...all of them pale in comparison to the once-in-a-lifetime performance and character of Heath Ledger as The Joker. Ledger, as most of you know, rightfully won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for this role - a rare feat for a "comic book" movie. This is not only the Best Supporting Actor turn for 2008, but I would argue it is one of the best Supporting Actor turns of all-time. Anytime that Ledger is on the screen, your eye goes to him and you lose all sense of anything else that is going on. His look, his tics, his pauses, his vocal patterns, his mannerisms, his walk, ALL convey a sense of the character and added all up, it is quite something to behold.
Many, many have called this their favorite "comic book" film of all time, but I don't think I share that idea. While Nolan spent much of his time on the characters, the "look" of the film and the effects and stunts, he left the story a little too thin and the length of this film is a bit too long, for my tastes. I was most certainly looking at my watch during the "thrilling conclusion" of this film waiting for it to be done.
Now...to be fair...most of the reason for that is that I was exhausted watching Ledger's performance. He wore me out. But...that's a compliment, not a complaint.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
THE DARK KNIGHT continues the "dark, realistic" Batman story line (based on the Frank Miller Graphic Novels of the same name) that Nolan started with BATMAN BEGINS. This film starts off simply enough - a "James Bond" type of opening action sequence that has Batman tying up some loose ends (specifically regarding the villain Scarecrow), but Nolan (and his brother, the Screenwriter Jonathan Nolan) do a clever thing, they interweave the introduction of a new villain, The Joker, into this universe.
While The Joker commits crime after crime, his real purpose is to bring chaos and anarchy to Gotham City - and he succeeds wonderfully well, despite the attempts of Batman, Alfred, Lucious Fox and Detective Jim Gordon to stop him.
As is befitting a criminal such as The Joker - and also, as befitting a big budget summer tent pole blockbuster film - the stunts of this film are amazing, over-the-top, explosive and LOUD. There are death defying stunts, breathlessly captured, long, screeching car chases (that's a good thing) and fight scenes that are well choreographed and are, by the most part, done "practically" (not with the aid of CGI), including a wonderful stunt of flipping a semi-truck and trailer up in the air and onto it's back by the nose of the truck.
These stunts would mean nothing if there wasn't some folks to root for and get behind - and this film has those characters - and performances - in spades with continued good work from Nolan "Dark Knight Trilogy" regulars Christian Bale (Batman/Bruce Wayne), Detective Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), Alfred the Butler (Michael Caine, really shining here) and Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman - a nice character add to this universe for this trilogy). This core really brings the goods, which is good, for the newcomers to this series - Aaron Eckhart's District Attorney Harvey Dent and Maggie Gillenhall taking over the role of Rachel Dawes (from Katie Holmes) are pretty bland in comparison.
But...all of them pale in comparison to the once-in-a-lifetime performance and character of Heath Ledger as The Joker. Ledger, as most of you know, rightfully won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for this role - a rare feat for a "comic book" movie. This is not only the Best Supporting Actor turn for 2008, but I would argue it is one of the best Supporting Actor turns of all-time. Anytime that Ledger is on the screen, your eye goes to him and you lose all sense of anything else that is going on. His look, his tics, his pauses, his vocal patterns, his mannerisms, his walk, ALL convey a sense of the character and added all up, it is quite something to behold.
Many, many have called this their favorite "comic book" film of all time, but I don't think I share that idea. While Nolan spent much of his time on the characters, the "look" of the film and the effects and stunts, he left the story a little too thin and the length of this film is a bit too long, for my tastes. I was most certainly looking at my watch during the "thrilling conclusion" of this film waiting for it to be done.
Now...to be fair...most of the reason for that is that I was exhausted watching Ledger's performance. He wore me out. But...that's a compliment, not a complaint.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated Swingers (1996) in Movies
Nov 24, 2019
Verdict: Reality Check Comedy
Story: Swingers starts when two friends Trent (Vaughn) and Mike (Favreau) head from LA to Las Vegas for a night to try and help Mike shake off his breakup with his girlfriend. Trent does have a way with women, which he is trying to teach Mike for their return to LA. Joined with Rob (Livingston) the three struggling actors talk shop about how they haven’t gotten their big break yet.
We continue to follow the friends around the town as they try to help Mike rebound from his breakup, pushing him to take risks, despite the group of aspiring actors just going through the same routine, not partying till late and Mike wanting to get back together with his ex.
Thoughts on Swingers
Characters – Mike is one of the aspiring actors, he has had the most gigs of the rest of the friends, he is struggling with a break up which has been holding him back for 6 months and now, the friends are trying to help him break out of his shell, as he always ends up getting nervous about everything whenever he is put on the spot. Trent is the confident ladies man, he is always trying to teach Mike about how to pick up women, showing his confidence through any chatting up situation. Rob is the friend that followed Mike, he looks up to him and wants to follow in his footsteps despite the constant job rejections. Sue is another one of the group, he has a different attitude which could see them getting into trouble. Between the three of them of the friends they all want to help Mike in their own way.
Performances – Jon Favreau as the down on his luck actor is great to watch in this role, he makes us understand why he feels life isn’t going his way. Vince Vaughn brings all the energy to his role, showing that he was always going to be great to watch in the fast-talking roles. Ron Livingston bring gravity to his role, showing a man with his feet on the ground, while Patrick Van Horn brings a mix of the three while not knowing his own motivation.
Story – The story here follows four struggling actors as they look for women every night which sees them trying to help one of them get over their blues of a breakup, each has their own style which they try to imprint on the others. This story mixes up the styles of helping a friend with a breakup and highlights how difficult it is to make it as an actor in Hollywood. We might spend a lot of time just watching the guys party, which is mean to highlight their struggles and watching them all give advice to Mike shows that friends will always be there for you, but you will need to make the biggest step in changing your future.
Comedy – The comedy in the film comes from the mishaps that happen to the guys on their adventures through the night showing how not every plan is as well exercised as the next.
Settings – The film is mostly set in LA, it shows the bars that people would go to hoping for a late night party, the ones that only the locals would truly know about.
Scene of the Movie – The awkward phone, mainly because it is and can be so real for people.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It doesn’t show any of their acting lives.
Final Thoughts – This is a comedy that shows the struggles being an actor really are, while also trying to highlight the party lifestyle people in LA like.
Overall: Strong Look at Hollywood Lifestyle.
Story: Swingers starts when two friends Trent (Vaughn) and Mike (Favreau) head from LA to Las Vegas for a night to try and help Mike shake off his breakup with his girlfriend. Trent does have a way with women, which he is trying to teach Mike for their return to LA. Joined with Rob (Livingston) the three struggling actors talk shop about how they haven’t gotten their big break yet.
We continue to follow the friends around the town as they try to help Mike rebound from his breakup, pushing him to take risks, despite the group of aspiring actors just going through the same routine, not partying till late and Mike wanting to get back together with his ex.
Thoughts on Swingers
Characters – Mike is one of the aspiring actors, he has had the most gigs of the rest of the friends, he is struggling with a break up which has been holding him back for 6 months and now, the friends are trying to help him break out of his shell, as he always ends up getting nervous about everything whenever he is put on the spot. Trent is the confident ladies man, he is always trying to teach Mike about how to pick up women, showing his confidence through any chatting up situation. Rob is the friend that followed Mike, he looks up to him and wants to follow in his footsteps despite the constant job rejections. Sue is another one of the group, he has a different attitude which could see them getting into trouble. Between the three of them of the friends they all want to help Mike in their own way.
Performances – Jon Favreau as the down on his luck actor is great to watch in this role, he makes us understand why he feels life isn’t going his way. Vince Vaughn brings all the energy to his role, showing that he was always going to be great to watch in the fast-talking roles. Ron Livingston bring gravity to his role, showing a man with his feet on the ground, while Patrick Van Horn brings a mix of the three while not knowing his own motivation.
Story – The story here follows four struggling actors as they look for women every night which sees them trying to help one of them get over their blues of a breakup, each has their own style which they try to imprint on the others. This story mixes up the styles of helping a friend with a breakup and highlights how difficult it is to make it as an actor in Hollywood. We might spend a lot of time just watching the guys party, which is mean to highlight their struggles and watching them all give advice to Mike shows that friends will always be there for you, but you will need to make the biggest step in changing your future.
Comedy – The comedy in the film comes from the mishaps that happen to the guys on their adventures through the night showing how not every plan is as well exercised as the next.
Settings – The film is mostly set in LA, it shows the bars that people would go to hoping for a late night party, the ones that only the locals would truly know about.
Scene of the Movie – The awkward phone, mainly because it is and can be so real for people.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It doesn’t show any of their acting lives.
Final Thoughts – This is a comedy that shows the struggles being an actor really are, while also trying to highlight the party lifestyle people in LA like.
Overall: Strong Look at Hollywood Lifestyle.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020 (Updated Jan 26, 2020)
Fantastic performances from two old acting pros.
Being inaugurated as a new pope in the last century must have been a source of enormous pride. But there must also have been a nagging thought... at some point you are going to be paraded, stiff as a board, around your work courtyard before being taken back inside to your place of work and buried there!
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mister Roberts (1955) in Movies
Apr 10, 2020
Well Acted
A staple of Old Hollywood under the Studio System was to adapt to the film Broadway shows that were a big hit. One such hit was the 1948 WWII play MISTER ROBERTS starring Henry Fonda (who would win a Tony Award for his performance).
In 1955, Paramount Studios mounted a film production of MISTER ROBERTS starring Fonda, James Cagney (in his last film role for Paramount - who he had been under contract to for 25 years), William Powell (in his last film role) and a young "up-and-comer" by the name of Jack Lemon.
Set in the waning days of World War II aboard a "cargo vessel", MISTER ROBERTS tells the tale of...well...Mister Roberts, the cargo officer who is keeping the ship afloat - serving as a buffer between the crew and the tyrannical Captain. Roberts longs for one thing - to join the war on a battleship, but the Captain knows his success is dependent on Roberts.
Paramount considered Fonda too old for the role, so they sought out younger stars like Marlon Brando and William Holden, but Director John Ford insisted on Fonda - and a wise choice it was. Fonda's easy-going natural personality - tinged with anger and regret - is perfectly suited for this role. He is just as at home joking around with the sailors as he is going mano-a-mano with the Captain. Also perfectly cast is the great James Cagney as the Captain who is only concerned about 1 thing - how he is perceived by the higher ups in the Navy. The conflict between Cagney and Fonda is dynamite and it is worth the price of admission just to watch these 2 Hollywood heavyweights go at it.
Jack Lemon won his first Oscar (as Best Supporting Actor) for portraying Mr. Roberts bunkmate, Ensign Pulver. It is a perfect match of character and actor and you can see where the greatness that is Jack Lemon (an under-rated actor) stems from. The surprise to me at this viewing was the strong work of William Powell (THE THIN MAN movie series) as Doc, the best friend of Mr. Roberts aboard the ship. He has an ease and rapport with Fonda and when Fonda, Powell and Lemon share the screen together the film sparkles.
And that's the best part - and the worst part - of this great film. It looks like a filmed stage play. Veteran Director John Ford looks like he was "mailing it in" on this one, in that he would just put his camera in one stationary position and let his actors play the scenes like they were in a play. This is either laziness - or genius - at the hands of Ford (I would argue probably a little of each). He was wise enough to know he had some incredible talent (Fonda, Cagney, Powell and Lemon) - and a strong script by Frank S. Nugent and Joshua Logan (based on the stage play by Logan and Thomas Hagen...based on Hagen's book), so he stayed out of the way as much as possible.
Consequently, the first part of this film is a bit talky and stagey looking and drags just a bit, but once the film catches it's steam - and these 4 stars light up the screen - this film is well worth watching.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
P.S.: I caught Mister Roberts on the great cable channel TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES - but (as far as I can tell) it's not scheduled to be re-run there anytime soon (and is not streamable on the Watch TCM app), so you'll need to rent it at all the "normal" places (YouTube, GoogePLay, iTunes and Vudu)
In 1955, Paramount Studios mounted a film production of MISTER ROBERTS starring Fonda, James Cagney (in his last film role for Paramount - who he had been under contract to for 25 years), William Powell (in his last film role) and a young "up-and-comer" by the name of Jack Lemon.
Set in the waning days of World War II aboard a "cargo vessel", MISTER ROBERTS tells the tale of...well...Mister Roberts, the cargo officer who is keeping the ship afloat - serving as a buffer between the crew and the tyrannical Captain. Roberts longs for one thing - to join the war on a battleship, but the Captain knows his success is dependent on Roberts.
Paramount considered Fonda too old for the role, so they sought out younger stars like Marlon Brando and William Holden, but Director John Ford insisted on Fonda - and a wise choice it was. Fonda's easy-going natural personality - tinged with anger and regret - is perfectly suited for this role. He is just as at home joking around with the sailors as he is going mano-a-mano with the Captain. Also perfectly cast is the great James Cagney as the Captain who is only concerned about 1 thing - how he is perceived by the higher ups in the Navy. The conflict between Cagney and Fonda is dynamite and it is worth the price of admission just to watch these 2 Hollywood heavyweights go at it.
Jack Lemon won his first Oscar (as Best Supporting Actor) for portraying Mr. Roberts bunkmate, Ensign Pulver. It is a perfect match of character and actor and you can see where the greatness that is Jack Lemon (an under-rated actor) stems from. The surprise to me at this viewing was the strong work of William Powell (THE THIN MAN movie series) as Doc, the best friend of Mr. Roberts aboard the ship. He has an ease and rapport with Fonda and when Fonda, Powell and Lemon share the screen together the film sparkles.
And that's the best part - and the worst part - of this great film. It looks like a filmed stage play. Veteran Director John Ford looks like he was "mailing it in" on this one, in that he would just put his camera in one stationary position and let his actors play the scenes like they were in a play. This is either laziness - or genius - at the hands of Ford (I would argue probably a little of each). He was wise enough to know he had some incredible talent (Fonda, Cagney, Powell and Lemon) - and a strong script by Frank S. Nugent and Joshua Logan (based on the stage play by Logan and Thomas Hagen...based on Hagen's book), so he stayed out of the way as much as possible.
Consequently, the first part of this film is a bit talky and stagey looking and drags just a bit, but once the film catches it's steam - and these 4 stars light up the screen - this film is well worth watching.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
P.S.: I caught Mister Roberts on the great cable channel TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES - but (as far as I can tell) it's not scheduled to be re-run there anytime soon (and is not streamable on the Watch TCM app), so you'll need to rent it at all the "normal" places (YouTube, GoogePLay, iTunes and Vudu)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Wrath of Man (2021) in Movies
Jun 16, 2021
Surprising Depth of Character and GREAT action
I am always up for a good “B” action flick - something mindless that shows a macho hero (usually seeking revenge) taking out a boatload of faceless/nameless bad guys. So it was with much anticipation that I settled back into my chair to clear my head and catch Jason Statham doing what he does best.
What I got was something much, much more.
Directed by Guy Ritchie (LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS), WRATH OF MAN tells the tale of seemingly innocent, meek, quiet man who takes a job with an Armored Car Company. Of course, since this meek man is played with a steely-eyed gaze by Jason Statham, there is something more to him. In the course of this film, of course, we find out.
Ritchie is a seasoned veteran Director of these sorts of films (LOCK STOCK…, SNATCH and the recent THE GENTLEMEN being examples of his ability) and this film nicely showcases his skill. He sets up the characters and the action scenes deftly and he does something that I really love to see in a film - he shows the same action scene from 3 different character's’ perspectives, every time we view the same scene from a different point of view it adds some depth to the scene (and the characters). It is this aspect of the film - the depth of character - that I was not expecting to see.
Statham, of course, is perfectly cast as the mysterious “H”. He has a strength of character (as well as a physical strength) needed to drive this story forward. I believed his motivations as a character while eagerly anticipating his “turn on a dime” change from “meek and mild” to “action hero”. In lesser hands, it would have seemed corny, but with Statham (and the direction of Ritchie), it is not.
Ritchie, of course, fills this world with a “rogues gallery” of tough guys, henchmen, unlikely heroes and villians. Standouts of this group were veteran character actor Holt McCallany (a veritable “that guy” actor) who plays a fellow armored car driver, Jeffrey Donovan (TV’s BURN NOTICE) and Scott Eastwood (Clint’s son) as a couple of “bad guys” and Darrell D’Silva (a veteran of European films who was heretofore unknown to me) as one of Statham’s allies. Whenever D’Silva was on the screen, he would draw my attention (in a good way). I’ll be keeping an eye out for him in future films.
Also along for the fun are the great Eddie Marsan (as the Manager of the Armored Car Company) and a gravelly voiced Andy Garcia (as a shadowy person from Statham’s past). They both know exactly what type of film they are in and look like they are having fun with their roles. Oh…and there is also a Josh Hartnett sighting (the “it” actor of the early ‘2000’s). His character of another Armored Car Driver is the weakest written and least realized of the characters in this film - but it was fun to see him on screen again.
But…all of these fine qualities rise or fall on the Direction of the action sequences and in the capable hands of Guy Ritchie, these scenes succeed greatly. He sets up and choreographs the fights (both hand-to-hand and gun fights) in such a way that the audience is never confused about what is going on (unless it is a deliberate choice) and he eschews the quick-cut editing that (I feel) is a sign of a weakly conceived and choreographed fight.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this film - not only for the action, but for the depth of character and quality that was put up on the screen.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
What I got was something much, much more.
Directed by Guy Ritchie (LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS), WRATH OF MAN tells the tale of seemingly innocent, meek, quiet man who takes a job with an Armored Car Company. Of course, since this meek man is played with a steely-eyed gaze by Jason Statham, there is something more to him. In the course of this film, of course, we find out.
Ritchie is a seasoned veteran Director of these sorts of films (LOCK STOCK…, SNATCH and the recent THE GENTLEMEN being examples of his ability) and this film nicely showcases his skill. He sets up the characters and the action scenes deftly and he does something that I really love to see in a film - he shows the same action scene from 3 different character's’ perspectives, every time we view the same scene from a different point of view it adds some depth to the scene (and the characters). It is this aspect of the film - the depth of character - that I was not expecting to see.
Statham, of course, is perfectly cast as the mysterious “H”. He has a strength of character (as well as a physical strength) needed to drive this story forward. I believed his motivations as a character while eagerly anticipating his “turn on a dime” change from “meek and mild” to “action hero”. In lesser hands, it would have seemed corny, but with Statham (and the direction of Ritchie), it is not.
Ritchie, of course, fills this world with a “rogues gallery” of tough guys, henchmen, unlikely heroes and villians. Standouts of this group were veteran character actor Holt McCallany (a veritable “that guy” actor) who plays a fellow armored car driver, Jeffrey Donovan (TV’s BURN NOTICE) and Scott Eastwood (Clint’s son) as a couple of “bad guys” and Darrell D’Silva (a veteran of European films who was heretofore unknown to me) as one of Statham’s allies. Whenever D’Silva was on the screen, he would draw my attention (in a good way). I’ll be keeping an eye out for him in future films.
Also along for the fun are the great Eddie Marsan (as the Manager of the Armored Car Company) and a gravelly voiced Andy Garcia (as a shadowy person from Statham’s past). They both know exactly what type of film they are in and look like they are having fun with their roles. Oh…and there is also a Josh Hartnett sighting (the “it” actor of the early ‘2000’s). His character of another Armored Car Driver is the weakest written and least realized of the characters in this film - but it was fun to see him on screen again.
But…all of these fine qualities rise or fall on the Direction of the action sequences and in the capable hands of Guy Ritchie, these scenes succeed greatly. He sets up and choreographs the fights (both hand-to-hand and gun fights) in such a way that the audience is never confused about what is going on (unless it is a deliberate choice) and he eschews the quick-cut editing that (I feel) is a sign of a weakly conceived and choreographed fight.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this film - not only for the action, but for the depth of character and quality that was put up on the screen.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Good Time (2017) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Here is another example of a very watchable low budget film that may have passed by your radar undetected. It came to my attention in two ways. The first because I disliked Uncut Gems so much folk started telling me to watch Good Time to get a better idea of what the Safdie brothers were all about. The second because Robert Pattinson kept popping up and being good in things, when again, there was a time I wouldn’t have thought that possible.
Josh and Benny Safdie have a lot of energy as filmmakers it seems; if the two films I’ve seen so far indicate a motif then it is people forced to act without much thought when the stakes are pretty much life and death. A raw, desperate energy exists in their work that comes straight at you through the screen. In Uncut Gems I found they pushed that feeling too hard, and what we were left with was a massively uncomfortable experience that felt like drinking too much coffee and then being screamed at by someone you hated. Good Time tempers that a little by having a protagonist whose motives you can at least identify with, played by a better, less shouty, more subtle and more likeable actor.
The plot revolves around Pattinson’s Connie frantically trying to find and save his mentally challenged brother, Nick, played by co-director Benny Safdie, after forcing him to participate in a bank robbery that goes wrong. Safdie as an actor is superb and memorable in the role, as is Pattinson. The chemistry between the two is simultaneously edgy, heartbreaking and somehow genuine. You believe they are brothers and invest in it – feeling Nick’s guilt and need to atone driving every bad decision along the grimy path he treads through the seedier parts of the city.
The camerawork and direction make the lights and sounds of the city a character in itself. It may not be true, but I see this film in my head, now as I think of it, as being 90% at night, lit by flashing headlights. Certainly that feel of running head-on into traffic is a big part of it. But there are slower, more sensitive scenes that spring to mind too. Constantly we are being asked if we can forgive Nick, or at least understand why he is making the choices he is making. Essentially he wants the panic to stop, but can’t ever get himself to a place of peace. An idea beautifully illustrated in the scenes involving the female characters of Corey and Crystal (the former played by Jennifer Jason Leigh with typical edge); Nick wants to be loved and respected, but how will that ever be possible?
Contrasting Pattinson’s work here with other recent efforts, including Tenet, The Lighthouse and The Lost City of Z, you can see an impressive range where his true personality disappears into his character. Something not every actor can do by any means, and something Adam Sandler failed to do in Uncut Gems, for example. I continue to be more impressed by him from film to film, to the extent that if I saw him in a cast it would be reason enough to see something. He has that ability to make an average film watchable, often being the best thing about the project. And I have to admit that has surprised me. But I like Kristen Stewart too these days, so it just shows how much the Twilight franchise has to answer for!
I wouldn’t go mad recommending this to everyone, but there is a time and a place for it, and I’m pleased I can appreciate the talent and potential the Safdie Brothers have inherently. There certainly aren’t enough young filmmakers taking risks in this way any more. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to see their formula strike true gold before too long.
Josh and Benny Safdie have a lot of energy as filmmakers it seems; if the two films I’ve seen so far indicate a motif then it is people forced to act without much thought when the stakes are pretty much life and death. A raw, desperate energy exists in their work that comes straight at you through the screen. In Uncut Gems I found they pushed that feeling too hard, and what we were left with was a massively uncomfortable experience that felt like drinking too much coffee and then being screamed at by someone you hated. Good Time tempers that a little by having a protagonist whose motives you can at least identify with, played by a better, less shouty, more subtle and more likeable actor.
The plot revolves around Pattinson’s Connie frantically trying to find and save his mentally challenged brother, Nick, played by co-director Benny Safdie, after forcing him to participate in a bank robbery that goes wrong. Safdie as an actor is superb and memorable in the role, as is Pattinson. The chemistry between the two is simultaneously edgy, heartbreaking and somehow genuine. You believe they are brothers and invest in it – feeling Nick’s guilt and need to atone driving every bad decision along the grimy path he treads through the seedier parts of the city.
The camerawork and direction make the lights and sounds of the city a character in itself. It may not be true, but I see this film in my head, now as I think of it, as being 90% at night, lit by flashing headlights. Certainly that feel of running head-on into traffic is a big part of it. But there are slower, more sensitive scenes that spring to mind too. Constantly we are being asked if we can forgive Nick, or at least understand why he is making the choices he is making. Essentially he wants the panic to stop, but can’t ever get himself to a place of peace. An idea beautifully illustrated in the scenes involving the female characters of Corey and Crystal (the former played by Jennifer Jason Leigh with typical edge); Nick wants to be loved and respected, but how will that ever be possible?
Contrasting Pattinson’s work here with other recent efforts, including Tenet, The Lighthouse and The Lost City of Z, you can see an impressive range where his true personality disappears into his character. Something not every actor can do by any means, and something Adam Sandler failed to do in Uncut Gems, for example. I continue to be more impressed by him from film to film, to the extent that if I saw him in a cast it would be reason enough to see something. He has that ability to make an average film watchable, often being the best thing about the project. And I have to admit that has surprised me. But I like Kristen Stewart too these days, so it just shows how much the Twilight franchise has to answer for!
I wouldn’t go mad recommending this to everyone, but there is a time and a place for it, and I’m pleased I can appreciate the talent and potential the Safdie Brothers have inherently. There certainly aren’t enough young filmmakers taking risks in this way any more. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to see their formula strike true gold before too long.
Rehearsal® Pro
Productivity and Education
App
Rehearsal® Pro is the app for actors! Be off-book, book more work! Want to learn your lines?...